•  
  •  
 

Article Type

Original Article

Section/Category

Endodontics

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate canal centering ability by using different irrigants and cyclic fatigue resistance.

Materials and methods

Sixty-three teeth were randomly classified into three main groups according to the type of files: group 1 (n=21) M-Pro Files. Group 2 (n=21) 2Shape files. Group 3 (n=21) ProTaper Universal files (PTU). Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups according to the type of irrigation used (Saline, NaOCl, MTAD). A total of 42 rotary files (M-pro, 2Shape, PTU) were classified into 3 main groups. Each group (n=14), then each group was subdivided into 2 subgroups (n=7). Data were analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk test. Data showed parametric distribution so one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test was used for intergroup comparisons and repeated measures ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni test was used for intragroup comparisons.

Results

There was a significant difference between different groups (P < 0.001). The highest value (0.58±0.04) was found in M-pro, followed by 2Shape (0.54±0.02), while the lowest value (0.45±0.04) was found in PTU according to centering ability. Regarding cyclic fatigue, there was a significant difference between different groups (P < 0.001). The highest value was found in M-pro (1,129.8±3.76), followed by 2Shape (919.8±3.44), while the lowest value was found in PTU (520.2±1.21). Regarding irrigation solutions, there was no significant difference between different groups (P=0.108).

Conclusion

CM-wire alloy is superior to T-wire and Universal Ni-Ti alloy regarding canal centering ability and cyclic fatigue resistance. Type of irrigation does not affect the centering ability of different file type.

Keywords

2Shape, centering ability, M-Pro, MTAD, ProTaper Universal

Download

Share

COinS